Has Clinton Actually Won Anything? The Theft of Election 2016

March 20, 2016. U.S.A. Every election victory Hillary Clinton has received has been shrouded in falsehoods, mass disenfranchisement, election crimes, and/or fraud. Surrounding all of this, and backed up by videos taken by voters and undercover observers is an apparent scheme to steal an election that she may have lost in most or all states in which she has claimed victory.

In most games when a player is caught cheating, he forfeits. When the bottom 99% commit crimes, they are usually arrested and often go to jail or prison. However, in state after state, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been caught cheating, committing fraud and /or openly breaking the law with no consequence, no arrest, no loss of her votes and no remedies available to the voters. Why are the Clintons allowed to play outside rules not the rest of society has to follow?

Flaunting of Election Crimes. It is illegal to campaign right outside or inside of a polling place on election day. There is usually a minimum distance requirement of at least 100 feet. In Massachusetts, it is 150 feet. In Illinois, it is 100 feet. In North Carolina campaigning is not allowed less than 50 feet from the entrance to the polling places. Obstruction, intimidation and interfering with voting is a more serious crime. In federal elections, there can be both a federal and state prosecution without the application of double jeopardy.

​In Boston, Bill Clinton was caught along with Mayor Marty Walsh on video campaigning for his wife Hillary Clinton right outside of polling places. The fact that two or more persons were involved in the apparent crime leads to the potential prosecution of Bill Clinton and Marty Walsh for other crimes. The statutory crime of conspiracy generally is defined as a scheme or agreement of two or more people to violate public policy or a law. A requirement is an act in furtherance of the conspiracy and actually committing the crime suffices for the act. Conspiracy is often prosecuted as a felony. It was not just that Bill happened to illegally drop by one polling place with the mayor to campaign for his wife. He went to four polling places in the Boston area and even took his campaigning inside, making it appear clear that he intended to violate the law.

In Boston, voters were obstructed and prevented from voting by Bill Clinton and those accompanying him for hours. Some Sanders supporters were intimidated and told they would have to partially undress and turn their shirts inside out before they could vote. Every obstruction of each individual obstructed would have been a new crime. By the time, the apparent crimes committed against each of those prevented from voting are cumulatively added together, we would likely be looking at a lifetime sentence for someone not above the law.

Bill Clinton is no stranger to the law. He is a disbarred attorney. His wife is also an attorney and theoretically learned something in law school and in her years of practicing law. Criminal law is a required law school course. As Bill was doing the campaigning on behalf of his wife Hillary Clinton, this pulls her into the crime as a probable principal and co-conspirator.

Instantly, observers pointed out that Bill Clinton had committed crimes including probable felonies with regards to his actions in Boston. A petition calling for the arrest and prosecution of Bill Clinton quickly received more than 100,000 signatures, mostly from Democrats who were offended by the apparent criminal activity on behalf of one of their Presidential candidates.

Did Bill and Hillary wake up and apologize for the apparent crimes and promise not to do them again? Nope.

Bill did it again in Chicago. He went to multiple polling places and again took the campaign inside. Hillary did similarly in North Carolina, going into the polling place as well showing that it was a seemingly generalized unlawful plan of action for her campaign. There is also a petition put forth by Democrats calling for Bill Clinton's arrest and prosecution for his apparent election crimes in Illinois.

Bill and Hilary Clinton are not registered to vote in Massachusetts, Illinois or North Carolina and didn't have the excuse of personally voting when they entered the polling places in those states. The only apparent purpose would have been electioneering inside the polling places of those three states and that would have been a crime or rather multiple crimes. The fact that there were two or more (Bill and Hillary and their friend Marty) brings into play conspiracy statutes. Conspiracy is a statutory crime---not a theory. The apparent crimes were caught on video.

In Nevada, an under-cover video shows campaign workers and a campaign manager (an attorney) discussing ongoing violations of the election law and how to get away with breaking the law. The key phrase regarding the criminal conduct that was repeated by the campaign on the under-cover video was, "...ask for forgiveness, not for permission." Multiple people planning to commit crimes and ask for forgiveness appears to definitely fall within definition of a criminal conspiracy. The Nevada Attorney General's office is reportedly looking into this.

Obstruction of voting, misrepresentation of vote counts in the caucuses: In both Nevada and Iowa, Sanders voters were told to leave before their votes were counted. There is video proving this.

Caucus violations caught on video included: a)the Clinton's campaign's counting of voters not actually present and not actually voting in the caucuses, b)counting votes of people who were not registered to vote, b) officially recording vote counts pre-written results on the palm of a hand that likely did not have reflect the number of raised hands in the room, c) use by the Clinton campaign of an out-of-state precinct captain caught posing as an Iowa resident in the Iowa caucuses, d) Clinton receiving delegates from coin tosses where she should have lost the delegates as the the rules say the winner of the toss loses the delegate, but on the videos, when she won the toss, the other side lost other the delegates in violation of the rules, and e)ordering the Sanders people to leave before the votes were counted. Counting machines supplied by one of Clinton's campaign donors were used instead of live counters in places in Iowa. According to a call from the Iowa chairman to the Sanders campaign, in some caucuses, they didn't even keep track of the vote count, meaning the end result might be completely inaccurate.

The Sanders campaign and newspapers requested the raw vote data because of the irregularities and the likelihood that Sanders may have won Iowa. Iowa Democratic Chairwoman Andrea McGuire ( a Hillary operative whose car's license plate is HRC 2016) refused. The Nevada and Iowa caucuses were close. Subsequently, a county in Iowa flipped when reviewing their votes and Sanders may have won Iowa.

Disenfranchisement of millions of voters:

In states where Clinton did well, there was one thing those states had in common and that was the disenfranchisement of large percentage of the voters.

In Ohio, roughly 90% of 17 year olds who were eligible to vote were not allowed to vote. More than 85% of these were pro-Sanders voters and enough to change the results and give Sanders Ohio. There was an attempt to stop 100% of those voters from voting but a decision reached shortly before the election said they had to be allowed to vote. Because the decision came too late to allow them to register to register for the primary, the vast majority were not allowed to vote.

In Illinois, they ran out of ballots and significant numbers of voters were turned away. 17 year olds were not allowed to vote in places because of supposed computer glitches. The difference again would have been enough to give Sanders the victory by a wide margin.​In the Deep South and old Confederate states, millions of voters were disenfranchised because of voter ID laws, being on lists (often incorrect lists of those not allowed to vote), because of polls closing early, because of being refused Democratic ballots and because of machine errors. In the old Confederacy, nobody canclaim that the Blacks supported Clinton because more than 40% of Black males were not allowed to vote as a result of Clinton's mass incarceration program. But that wasn't all that went into the disenfranchisement.

Here are some examples from the South. In Georgia, where paperless Diebold machines regularly flip election results, Sanders supporters could not find Sanders name on the ballot in key precincts and were not allowed to vote for him. An attorney for the Sanders campaign is currently looking into this.

In Florida, alone, a documented three million voters were disenfranchised. Added to that, in one county there, poll workers sent Democratic voters home, telling them that it was not election day for Democrats. Later, Democratic ballots were found in a cabinet.

In North Carolina, 218,000 eligible voters were disenfranchised because of voter ID laws, requiring specific ID. Most of these were millennials who would have voted for Sanders. That’s enough votes to have given Sanders a landslide victory in North Carolina. In some places, voters were simply turned away due to a lack of ballots.

Trickery, Appeals to anti-Semitism and Misresentations

In the debates and in her ads, Hillary Clinton has misportrayed Sanders's record with respect to gun control, the auto bailout, the environment, mass incarceration, immigration, the war on Libya, banking regulations and other important matters. She has falsely claimed that his economic plan is fiscally unworkable when hundreds of top economists, including her husband's Secretary of Labor, have said Sanders's economic plan is workable, fiscally sound and will save the taxpayers trillions.

In the Deep South, which is Christian-based, her supporters appealed to anti-Semitism, using Sanders's religion as a religious mandate to oppose him. On her behalf, ministers preached against voting for the Jewish guy.

Vote Flipping and Computer-Rigged Results

Diebold, ES&S, Sequoi, Microsoft and other computer voting systems have been called into question. Voters' rights groups trying to protect election integrity consider these systems easy to rig.

The flipping of the vote in Missouri is a strong indicator of likely computerized vote flipping. Screen shots of vote counts in Massachusetts show that Sanders actually lost votes in one county. How do you lose votes? Ohio and Florida are particularly well known for their faulty computerized voting system that often flip and switch votes. Activists have been trying for years to get Ohio to fix it's easily easily rigged election systems but have been so far unsuccessful in getting Ohio officials to take action to ensure the accuracy of voting in that state. In one county in Florida, Al Gore's votes were subtracted, rather than added, to the count by a computerized system. Since then, the computerized voting in Florida has gotten worse. Voting integrity activists have tried unsuccessfully to protect the South against computerized vote fraud. Diebold actually put together a program, called, "Steal Georgia." As a whole, the states where Clinton has won have some of the least secure voting systems in the world.

"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do." - Joseph Stalin

Switching to computerized voting systems is the easiest way to steal an election. It is so easy to flip voting and tabulation machines that almost any computer-savy person who enters the election office at the right time, could easily flip the count. This is why people across America have been calling for paper ballots to be the primary ballots for counting purposes and for machines to be secondary. The problem is not just with the voting machines but with the tabulators as well.

Some time back, members of the Patrick Henry Democratic Club of America did a demonstration for the Democratic Party where, though only one person out of 40 demonstration voters voted for Osama bin Ladin, Osama was shown to be the 80% winner of the California Governor's election in that event.

Many voting integrity researchers, such as Bev Harris, Bob Fitrakas and others have worked to educate the public on the dangers of Black Box Voting. Following are three youtube videos regarding the ease of rigging these voting machines. The first involves a Princeton University study uploaded by helderheidgeloof. The second youtube video is the documentary, the HBO DocumentaryHacking America, which shows how computers played a role in Florida and Ohio in rigging the 2000 and 2004 elections. It was uploaded by hq Documentary. The third is of testimony by Clinton Eugene Curtis, a computer programmer who worked for a Congressman and wrote a prototype program that would flip the vote. It was uploaded by Manifest Liberty.

Based on the above, it is more than likely that Bernie Sanders is ahead in the real vote count. Because paperless voting machines often have no paper trail, there is no way of being certain of the actual vote count. However, the crimes of voter intimidation, campaigning inside and in front of polling places, and other illegalities, if pursued, could invalidate Clinton's election results in numerous states.

The question Americans need to ask themselves is whether they support going back to a monarchy where certain people are above the laws which lesser persons are required to observe. Millions of American voters are asking how anyone can vote for someone who, in their perception, is a lawless candidate who has spit on the face of the Constitution and American Democracy.

If Clinton is allowed to take office, instead of being arrested in connection with apparent election crimes, what impact will this have on future elections? This leads to the question of what crimes are acceptable in winning an election. Once the law-breaking line is crossed, is there really a limit? As with boiling frogs, wouldn't it be possible to break the law a little more and a little more each time if you are one of those above the law? Ask yourself whether Bernie Sanders would have been arrested if he and his wife had actively campaigned in front of and inside polling places. In future elections, will it become acceptable to simply discard the ballots voted for the less elite candidates into the nearest dumpsters? Or will it be acceptable for someone with the law-breaking rights of a Clinton to win an election by having their campaign workers point machine guns at voters as they vote? Doesn't allowing a candidate to keep her delegates illegally obtained defeat the purpose for having elections in the first place? Is American Democracy dead or will the voters in upcoming states take a stand by refusing to vote for lawless candidates?